3 ms·

>so people can see where stories originate and learn to be skeptical of stuff that comes from consistently unreliable or bizarre sources. This is closer to the

>so people can see where stories originate and learn to be skeptical of stuff that comes from consistently unreliable or bizarre sources. This is closer to the problem, not the solution. This caused the NASA Challenger disaster (authorities silenced engineers who warned of foam strike). This caused the US to lose the space race (all the authority and "intelligence community" was behind the Vanguard rocket). This caused the Gulf of Tonkan, Iraq, Iran-Contra... Consider the recent JPMorgan money-laundering story was for days published in English only on the site Zerohedge,[1] The WaPo literally accused Ron Paul in their news section of being a Russian Propogandist Consider CNN broadcasted that it is illegal to read Wikileaks. Collusion in Syria between the US and terrorists was always published first only on "disreputable" news sites. Democratic control is better than autocratic control. 1 - https://www.handelszeitung.ch/unternehmen/finma-jp-morgan-schweiz-verstosst-gegen-geldwascherei-normen https://www.handelszeitung.ch/unternehmen/finma-jp-morgan-sc...

anigbrowl 9y ago
I fail to see what my comment has to do with your laundry list of examples. I'm not arguing for centralized autocratic filtering but a mechanism for labeling points of origin and exposing that information to consumers. Your examples don't seem appropriate either. I suggested that people would choose to reject information from 'consistently unreliable or bizarre sources'. Your first counter-example is that of a NASA engineer whose warnings were overlooked, but engineers are not hired for their unreliability or bizarre opinions. Many of your other examples either ignore the well-known fact of parallel discovery or are themselves relying on the mechanism you claim to deplore of pre-emptively delegitimizing the source. Yes, I know some mainstream news outlets are inaccurate or agenda-driven. I hardly ever consume any news from CNN because I find most of their output to be low quality. I really don't understand the point of your comment. You seem to be projecting someone else's ideas onto my comment rather than evaluating what I actually wrote.
- wallace_f 9y ago
  >I fail to see what my comment has to do with your laundry list of examples. I'm not arguing for centralized autocratic filtering but a mechanism for labeling points of origin and exposing that information to consumers. Ok so let's take a look and go down the list of examples. We can start with NASA, where the "point of origin," being mere engineers who could not match the gravitas and authority of the well-respected leadership, saw the idea rejected, not on merit, but on their point of origin being less-respected than their superiors. This problem of rejecting ideas, not on their own merit, but on the authority or gravitas of establishment figures is the thread that ties all of those ideas together--and many other setbacks in history as well. Discrediting ideas by their point of origin can do real damage not just to the democratization of information dissemination, but also to the ideas themselves even if they have merit, as well as to indepedent journalism.
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    OK but for the last time I'm not advocating for a centralized gatekeeping approach and I'd appreciate if you'd stop projecting your parade of horribles onto an argument I'm not actually making.
    - wallace_f 9y ago
      I never said that you were. Also, relax. The examples I gave support my argument. Whether you agree or not is fine, but that you won't even admit they're relevant is strange.

anigbrowl 9y ago

I fail to see what my comment has to do with your laundry list of examples. I'm not arguing for centralized autocratic filtering but a mechanism for labeling points of origin and exposing that information to consumers. Your examples don't seem appropriate either. I suggested that people would choose to reject information from 'consistently unreliable or bizarre sources'. Your first counter-example is that of a NASA engineer whose warnings were overlooked, but engineers are not hired for their unreliability or bizarre opinions. Many of your other examples either ignore the well-known fact of parallel discovery or are themselves relying on the mechanism you claim to deplore of pre-emptively delegitimizing the source. Yes, I know some mainstream news outlets are inaccurate or agenda-driven. I hardly ever consume any news from CNN because I find most of their output to be low quality. I really don't understand the point of your comment. You seem to be projecting someone else's ideas onto my comment rather than evaluating what I actually wrote.

wallace_f 9y ago
>I fail to see what my comment has to do with your laundry list of examples. I'm not arguing for centralized autocratic filtering but a mechanism for labeling points of origin and exposing that information to consumers. Ok so let's take a look and go down the list of examples. We can start with NASA, where the "point of origin," being mere engineers who could not match the gravitas and authority of the well-respected leadership, saw the idea rejected, not on merit, but on their point of origin being less-respected than their superiors. This problem of rejecting ideas, not on their own merit, but on the authority or gravitas of establishment figures is the thread that ties all of those ideas together--and many other setbacks in history as well. Discrediting ideas by their point of origin can do real damage not just to the democratization of information dissemination, but also to the ideas themselves even if they have merit, as well as to indepedent journalism.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  OK but for the last time I'm not advocating for a centralized gatekeeping approach and I'd appreciate if you'd stop projecting your parade of horribles onto an argument I'm not actually making.
  - wallace_f 9y ago
    I never said that you were. Also, relax. The examples I gave support my argument. Whether you agree or not is fine, but that you won't even admit they're relevant is strange.